This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

The problem I have with this version is that it does not scale well. Some people have small screens or don't have their browser maximized and that makes this look terrible. --Vik Reykja♬ 09:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree the punctuation of the title needs to be fixed. Definately prefer the smaller, simpler visual layout like this over the gaudy box versions. I actually prefer the state and party abbrevs be linked (first use, at least). Niteowlneils 14:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a great tweak of the much-simplified version. One of the things that makes the template useful is checking out which states are all-Democrat, all-Republican, or 1:1, and this makes for a very easy way to do it. I say we stick with this. christopherschuller 07:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually wonder if it wouldnt be better to highlight the party by color; for example:

This could also give a view at-a-glance of the broad party strengths in the Senate, and also which states are solid and which are split. I haven't quite figured out how to get this to work in the template box, though; any help would be appeciated.--Pharos 07:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, colors are way over the top. --tomf688(talk) 01:36, Apr 5, 2005 (

Colors are much better than the version with (D) and (R). We are using the 'standard' color scheme. Red for republicans and Blue for democrats. --DuKot 07:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Standard schmandard, it looks awful. I mean it looks really, horribly amateurish. Not at all what one would expect from a quality encyclodedia. And I don't even want to think what usability professionals would have to say about overlaying the colors on top of text links. older≠wiser 22:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is amateurish; noone's being paid for this. The goal of a diagram like this is not to just be as graphically simple as possible, but actually to communicate the most information in a simple way. Looking at the color-coded version, one can actually say at a glance that New York and Wisconsin are pretty Democratic states, while Alabama and Oklahoma are pretty Republican, and states like Loiuisiana and Nevada are somewhere in between. This is almost a visually impossible thing to do from the (D)(R)(I) wall of undifferentiated text version, which practically requires you to trace the box with your finger to acquire any useful information from it at all. A quality encyclopedia is one with actually useful features, and we use color in many other parts of Wikipedia to illustrate and background.--Pharos 05:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But if the template makes a hideous mess of the articles that it is in, that far outweighs whatever slight convenience you might see in providing a color-coded representation of the parties. I look at that template and it is extremely difficult to tell "at a glance" what state has what party representation. The template fails at that objective. So it would be best to remove the ugliness and leave the graphic representation of balance of power to an article where there is space to deploy a more meaningful graphic. older≠wiser 23:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

You know, I once had a roommate who was totally color-blind. After he got dressed, he would have to ask me if his clothes clashed, because he couldn't tell. He would not be able to tell if a Senator was Democratic or Republican. Ditto users of text browsers, just as lynx.

I re-added the "(X)" party abbreviations, but didn't get rid of the background colors. The colors are sufficiently light that no one should have trouble reading the links (but correct me if this impression is incorrect) and they serve as an additional visual cue to the party, yet one can also use the party abbreviation if one is color-blind, using a text browser, or just more lexically- than chromatically-oriented. Basically, I figure two modes or information transfer are better than one.

I readded pipes between state delegations. The pipes serve to separate the delegations from each other. If somebody were to find a better way to make sure that the states are visually grouped, I'd appreciate it.

I readded commas between the two senators, to group the party abbreviation with the appropriate senator.

I fully expect to get Pharos rather exercised, since I effectively reversed two of his changes. Nonetheless, I think that this is the best version, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. — DLJessup 00:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The colors are absolutely hideous. Is everyone else color-blind? My god. This is just awful. Honestly. Aside from the colors though, I could live with the template. older≠wiser 01:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy as long as there is some kind of party identification. I personally prefer the colors instead of (D) or (R). --DuKot 04:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I increased the size of the state abbreviations expressly to serve as visual markers and eliminate the need for the pipes (compare it with the previous versions and you will see what I mean). I don't really think the (R)(D)(I)s are necessary (monochromatic colorblindness for one is extremely rare, and these people still can distinguish solid shades of differing brightness), but inside the color blocks they probably detract less visually than standing naked in whitespace. A fair resolution, but I still think we can dump the pipes.--Pharos 05:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DL, I don't understand your most recent change of the template at all (after the one described here). Was it accidental?--Pharos 05:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was accidental. I was previewing a change in which I replaced pipes with extra space, to see if that worked better. I had thought that I clicked cancel instead of save. — DLJessup 14:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please check out my own suggested version as well. I think that organizing it in five columns of ten makes it much more elegant and readable. Now we have states one under the other -- findable. Colors tell us affiliation at a glance, but now that it's organized in columns it doesn't drive my eyes mad. Tell me what you think. Aris Katsaris 06:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

What is it that people have against having both the party abbreviation and the colors? — DLJessup 14:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had removed them because I felt it wasted space. In small screen definitions (or bigger fonts) they made the senators' names wrap, and thus the template less elegant. Aris Katsaris 19:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I like the new version. Colors have to go though; very unattractive and unnecessary. --tomf688(talk) 21:00, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I feel the colors seriously detract from this template. Perhaps introducing much lighter shades will be easier on the eyes, as right now it is far too ugly with colors. --tomf688(talk) 15:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better, but they might be too light, depending on who looks at it. TBH, it would be best without color. --tomf688(talk) 15:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The softened colors are better (or are at least less garish), although it still looks like something a sixth-grader put together (no offense to sixth-graders, but I think maybe we can expect a bit more for WP). older≠wiser 22:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely too light. On my Windows computer, I can't see the background colors at all. However, if tomf688's computer is rendering these colors dark enough to see now, I can only imagine how difficult it might be to have read the original background on his computer. — DLJessup 11:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With the Cologne Blue skin, the current (April 10) version uses standard text size. This takes up easily the entire screen. It might work if the font sizes was defined differently (font or small tag, style on span e.g.). Please check.—Preceding undated comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

No need for both, since they both pretty much say the same thing. I'd vote to remove the colors, personally. --tomf688(talk) 00:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I understand not liking textual redundancy — that just lowers the signal to noise ratio. But modal redundancy is a good thing: some people can't use the colors (for instance, because they're using a text browser, such as lynx, or they're color-blind), but others like having the colors because the brain processes colors faster and with greater accuracy than it interprets text. — DLJessup 12:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually support reviving the VFD thing on this template following the recent changes made to each state's templates. Every state template now provides a link to each congressional representation template, so its basically just one more click and a lot smoother-looking and less crowded. See Template:MD-FedRep for example. --tomf688(talk) 00:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's way too much IMO. The recent changes to the FedRep templates (which adds links to other congressional delegation templates) just adds one extra click to the process, and should be used in favor of this template.

I'm actually inclined to agree. However, I would hold off on the VfD until (a) all of the XX-FedRep templates at least have the Senate links filled and (b) all of the individual senator's pages have the "Current U.S. Senators" template removed.

BTW, has anyone considered the effort that's going to be required for the XX-FedRep templates come January 3, 2007? — DLJessup 22:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you mean after the next elections... shouldn't be too hard to change a few links. --tomf688(talk) 00:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take back my previous comment (about being inclined to agree), because the XX-FedRep templates no longer link to the other templates, but to the U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_<State> pages. — DLJessup 15:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "Congressional delegates by state" would be add into the two letter codes of {{Current U.S. Senators}} rather than {{AZ-FedRep}}, the pages would be 3 lines shorter. Ok, it would still be too long. -- User:Doc

Would be better to keep those three lines and just get rid of this template... then it would be a lot of lines shorter. :) --tomf688(talk) 20:14, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please consider revising this template to match the USGovernors template. No color, no party designation, nice size, clean and simple. Plenty of room at this font for two last names in the place of one full name. stilltim 12:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To User:DuKot this new version looks BIGGER than his version (Version D) [2].

According to the wiki code Version M must be smaller than Version D. However User:DuKot has tried viewing the page in Firefox and IE and still Version M looks bigger than Version D.

Question 1: In your browser , which version appears larger? Version M or Version D. Also specify the name of your browser.

Question 2: According to your opinion which version of the template is more user friendly? Version M or Version D --DuKot 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at the template code for Version M and at the official standard shows the cause of the problem: font-size:xxx-small is nonsense. The smallest <absolute-size> available is xx-small. This causes the whole font-size property to be dropped (with a nice error message on Firefox's JavaScript Console), making it assume the default value (which is defined elsewhere, and which for most people should be larger than Version D's x-small). --cesarb 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've re-written the template using xx-small, and it again looks much, much smaller on mine. How about on your guys'? Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. By the way, while we're all discussing the template, I have to put my lot in with those who think the colors aren't useful. We already show party affiliation, so it doesn't add any useful information, and it certainly doesn't add to the aesthetics, IMHO. – Quadell(talk) (bounties) 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Same (Mozilla), but probably because I have a minimum font size set in my browser. Version D has less spacing between lines and is slightly shorter. As for user friendliness, these templates are much too wide. Although I don't know what other guidelines are out there, the image use policy suggests a maximum width of 550px. This template should be condensed down to three or four columns. —Mike 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

They both force a scroll for me, but the D version is much wider... at least on my computer. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least 2 requests at info-en@wikim to fix pages causing horizontal scrollbars, and the one I'm answering now is referencing an article with this template. These people are probably viewing articles with low resolution or with increased font size. Note that browsers like Firefox has a minimum font size setting, which overrides what a page's CSS may suggest. Can we change it to 3 columns for these users?

When people start using cell-phones and PDAs to surf the site we'll have to use a liquid (see mistake 9) design.-- Jeandré, 2006-05-14t15:20z

Well, it used to be five columns, and almost everyone had to scroll. The template would be very, very cramped with just three columns, and I don't know if anyone needs to scroll now. If need could be demonstrated, we could potentially change it, but it'd be a good deal of work, and I just don't see any need. =/ Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The user who emailed info-en@ needs to scroll, as do I (my minimum font size=15 on Ubuntu Firefox) eventho I don't have a problem with it as Firefox makes the rest of the text fill the visible space so scrolling is only required for large images and tables. I've changed it to 3 columns. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-16t21:07z

Well, now it looks like an ugly mess at 3 columns. Could you maybe raise a consensus to make such a drastic change? Forcing a microminority of users to scroll horizontally is a pain, but as I see it we might as well not have the template at three columns--it's dang near unreadable. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If it makes all 100 senator articles near impossible to use for people with poor eye sight, I don't think it's minor. It's about the information, not how pretty it is. If a template with 150 links is too big, then a link to an article instead would be better. See page widening. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t12:22z

Jeandré raises a very good point. Many of the navbox templates add considerable clutter to articles primarily only for the sake of convenience--to avoid having to click an extra click to go to a list page or category page. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the President and the President pro tempore. Since every column wasn't equal in height, I thought I might as well add the two leadership positions. (I left out Byrd and president pro tempre emeritus since that title is absolutley ceremonial.) One clear disadvantage is that both President and president pro tempore are not very significant positions in common practice as well. Another con is that Ted Stevens is listed twice near eachother, (which may imply the senior senator from Alaska and the pres. pro tempre are different people). I already know the template is already crammed with information, but just wondering if anyone else has any thoughts. - Rogsheng—Preceding undated comment added by Rogsheng (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I already jumped on the gun on removing Santorum, forgetting that, lo, he's still a senator, albeit a lame duck. But I wonder - does Lieberman count as a Democrat until the new Senate is sworn in? I should think so. Matveiko 08:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, and there is no reason to believe they will not allow him to do so. Technically they would not have a majority without him. He himself remains a Democrat through and through, despite his views on the war and the primary voters' preferences. I'm sure he is registered as such. Think of it this way: the Connecticut for Lieberman Party chose a Democrat as its candidate. Or did I miss something? Addendum - I suppose I did miss something, namely my opinion, though one could derive the answer. As Lieberman is a Democrat and a duly elected Senator from Connecticut, he should be identified on the template as a Democrat. --BDD 06:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it clear enough by now that Lieberman shouldn't be classified as a Democrat of any stripe? He's officially an Independent and he frequently votes against and speaks against Democrats. I'm changing it for now; Independent Democrat is a made-up category and therefore inaccurate anyway.Epenthesis 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lieberman still caucuses with the Democratic party (admittedly so does Saunders) and, perhaps more importantly, is a registered Democrat. He frequently votes against and speaks against (most) Democrats on a specific and high-profile nexus of issues -- those surrounded the Iraq War and other military and clandestine operations in the Middle East -- but those are not the only issues that the Senate considers. On the vast majority of his other positions his votes match the consensus of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. I'm not personally a fan of him, but let's not pretend he's something he's not. --Jfruh (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this templete REALLY need the leter and a color for each senator. Doesn't one or the other get the point across? Cnriaczoy42 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This was brought up a while ago; I agree that the colors are not necessary and are redundant. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the colors serve a useful purpose in giving a quick visual idea of the composition of the Senate. And also I think they just make it more aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps they aren't necessary but I see no reason not to have them. DanyaRomulus 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think the colors are useful. Perhaps redundant, but human beings aren't computers - some people are more visual, and the colors are interesting to them; some are more word-oriented and "(R)" and "(D)" are enough. Unless the colors have some negative impact (it's not clear to me what that would be), I think they should stay. John Broughton | Talk 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i know this has been discussed, and since i really don't have a problem with beating dead horses, i'd like to add that i'm really hating the colours too. --emerson7 | Talk 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The green color is not only horrible, but also makes no sense. The GOP should be red, not green. Who thought this was a good idea? It needs to be changed back to red as soon as possible.1.21 jigwatts 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed Amy Klobuchar's party designation from DFL to D. I've done so for two reasons:

1. While no doubt the DFL has meaning for Minnesotans, it's not something most people are familiar with outside of the state. My first impression was that it was a typo, and I almost changed it straight away. But I thought to click Klobuchar's wiki and learned from her page of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party in Minnesota.

2. The DFL is affiliated with the national Democratic party; and in terms of it's relationship with the national party, it doesn't seem any different than the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party, which is listed only as (D) for Sens. Dorgan and Conrad in the template.

I considered making the (DFL) wikilink to the DFL party page, but that would have been inconsistent with the other party designations (and would have required an update to Conrad and Dorgan's affiliations as well to be consistent in showing state-specific party designations--and that didn't seem called for).

The other possibility would have been some sort of asterisk/footnote explaining the DFL, but which would have further cluttered the template and would have still left us with either the same inconsistency with the ND senators, or more clutter to make them the same way.

(And by this point, I didn't even want to know if there were state-specific Republican Party affiliates!) -- Zen Jeff 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought Hillary resigned to become Secretary of State. She has been sworn in, and I doubt she is both the Secretary of State and the junior Senator from New York at the same time.--24.26.56.214 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this a no go, or a wait until Lautenberg retires (assuming he's replaced by someone with fewer letters in his/her name), or some other fix I'm not thinking of? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular problem with leaving it in four columns? Additionally, I'm seeing NJ remaining on one line in both versions. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. NJ hung on two lines on my work computer, and it's much worse on my home computer. I'm not changing it, just experimenting. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Mike Lee (American politician) was recently moved to Mike Lee (Utah politician); if this template is updated, it clears redirects from 99(+?) other articles, allowing the remainder to be located and updated. Thanks in advance, & HNY2011! 75.203.205.194 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer

None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.

All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.

The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.